Sunday, September 30, 2012

Liberal Open-Mindedness Disclaimer - If you are a liberal and are reading this, you must read the whole thing. Do not claim to be "open minded" and then not get to the meat of the post below then blather on uninformed about this post. Thank you.

Study comes out showing that republican women candidates tend to be more feminine looking than they're liberal counterparts.

I'll say it again for the cheap seats and see if I can succinctly summarize my theory (which is right) about why this is so.

Liberals and leftist in general tend to be lazy. They eschew hard work, they're afraid of rigor, and this shows in their ideology. ANYTHING to avoid having to support themselves or work an honest day. Yes, I know some work hard, but it's more or a less a monopoly of the left to hear:

"Life's unfair."

"I'm discriminated against."

"The glass ceiling."

"The Man is holding me down"

etc. etc.

Now, even though it's disingenuous and intellectually dishonest, they can get away with this in an economic and political sense because this is a democracy. Socialists and leftists with heart-tugging sob stories can get the majority of voters to vote in policy that transfers wealth and essentially allows them to be lazy and avoid real, productive work. We all have to abide by this because we live in this democracy.

HOWEVER, while a democracy may force different economic policies on society through the government, IT CANNOT CHANGE HUMAN NATURE. Specifically, no matter what policies socialists and leftists try to implement, you will never change what a woman is attracted to and what a man is attracted to.

Women like strong, tall, big men.

Men like long legs, long hair, big boobs, tight asses and feminine features.

This means liberals and leftists (just like all humans and animals on this planet) ARE FORCED to compete when it comes to courting and mating, whether they like it or not. However, when I say "compete" I don't mean, "be lucky enough to be born handsome or pretty." I mean "work out, stay in shape and make yourself sexy to the opposite sex."

Which means, again, just like any other job, just like any other degree, just like any other pursuit, it requires effort, discipline, rigor and hard work. Things liberals and leftists abhor.

And it shows.

Now, keep in mind what I'm saying here because I don't want to be misquoted or taken out of context.

I do NOT believe liberals and leftists are born uglier than their average conservative counterpart. It's not like they're genetically inferior or anything. What I am talking about is that they put A LOT LESS EFFORT into their physical appearance. Ergo, this is not a criticism of their basic, physical beauty, let alone their genetics, but it IS a criticism of their psychology. You could take that Prius-driving, 45 year old, gray haired, super skinny yoga woman who never wore make-up, never did her hair up, give her a make over and she'd come out looking just fine. Just as you could take the cowering, tubby orbiting beta with the Seth Rogen beard, through him in the gym for 3 months and have him come out looking just fine.

But that's the not the point.

The point is to your average leftists such working out and maintenance requires effort. That AND the added risk they may still "fail" in attracting a mate. It is their pure hatred and fear of effort and competition that not only drives their political and economic ideologies, but also drives their "romantic" or "mating" ideology.

Therefore, since it takes too much work to don a pair of heels and gussy yourself up or hit the gym and lose some inches, what do liberals do?

All while exuding that same pompous, arrogant, hypocritical attitude they lord over the rest of us adults as they "go green" and drive their Priuses.

In the end you have a group of people living in denial. They're so lazy and afraid they will never try and thus, they will never achieve their best. They will not re-define reality (because reality is reality, it bends for no liberal), but will only manage to delude themselves what reality is. And thus you end up with wimpy, pansified men dating or marrying homely, ugly, unpleasant women pursing a "life" of pursuits and hobbies that require no real effort (going green, joining a political crusade, claiming you care about the children, majoring in "Lesbian Chinese Sculpture Studies," drum circles, yoga, you name it).

It is a life they really don't enjoy and it is the reason you never really see any of them smile as you pass their bumper-sticker-laden Prius on the highway.

Gee, I didn't notice with all the women in my life nitpicking and micromanaging and questioning every little decision I make. Not to mention, every woman having the natural, unconscious overriding desire to lead while ballroom dancing even though they're noobs. Not to mention, seemingly questioning the wisdom of other people's decisions when I get the feeling the only reason they do that is NOT to understand the decisions, but merely for the sake of being able to question and interrogate other people.

Would NEVER had guessed female economists think they know what's best for the economy and lean to the left!

Saturday, September 29, 2012

Again, I don't care who stays home and who goes to work. Sometimes it's better for the guy to stay home or for the girl to stay home. But BOTH cannot stay home just as BOTH probably should not be working.

Touting the superiority of women over men because they earn the majority of degrees (in "Worthless Crap Studies" that avoids calculus at all costs).

Touting their superior employment prospects (in fields that are not only non-producing fields, government, education, nonprofits, but bubbles themselves until the money runs out).

Takes 18 pages to make a simple, yet, invalid point.

And the added benefit of being a 30 something woman who still thinks she has the sexual market place value of a 25 year old (because she IS EDUCATED!).

Why, who wouldn't want to scoop this gem up right away!?

End sarcasm

Boys, but especially ladies, I want you to pay attention to this. THIS is what you get. Could you imagine living with this woman? There would be no love, no care, no kindness. Just a constantly "Whatever you can do I can do better" vendetta competition. I cannot think of a quicker way to ruin my life than spend time with this. And don't think that Ms. Loh is a rarity. This is common. AND don't think it goes away when women turn 30. It merely magnifies itself to rationalize things away.

And again, ladies, you have a choice. Support men or fight them.

Guess which one is not only more productive, but is going to make you happier.

Sheesh.

post post - what a freaking catch - Loh wrote about her divorce in a 2009 article for The Atlantic,
where she has been a contributing writer for several years, focusing
mostly on parenting and family issues. She explained at the time that,
as a parent and full-time writer, "I did not have the strength to 'work
on' falling in love again in our marriage."[6]She also admitted to cheating on her husband.[7]

Thursday, September 27, 2012

So, I was listening to Garage Logic which is a show all of you should listen to and Joe Soucheray (the host) kept on citing that St. Paul public schools spend $17,000 per pupil per year. This translates into $221,000 per pupil over the course of their k-12 career, and that does not include baby-sitting school...er...I mean "pre-school."

This got me thinking.

"What if we just gave the kids the $221,000 instead of educated them? Wouldn't they be better off? I mean, I never had $221,000 in my name in my LIFE. But by the age of 18, you could buy a house FOR CASH and never have to pay rent again."

So I looked up the median price of a home in St. Paul. $197,607 (though this may change of course).

It's actually CHEAPER to BUY A HOUSE in St. Paul than educate one of their precious chllllllldrnnnnnnn. You could buy 1.1 houses per pupil instead of sending them to school.

And I think that's a great ratio to see how much we're pissing away...err..."investing" in the chllllldrnnnnnn. "Houses Afforded Per Pupil."

Seeing this isn't terribly difficult to look up, I decided to calculate a couple other cities' "Houses Afforded Per Pupil" and see if just giving these chlllllldrnnnn their education-cash equivalent instead, wouldn't be a better investment.

Now what's great about this, is it puts the public schools of these cities in a real difficult position.

1. I'll claim, right here, right now the students of these districts are poorer students. Not in terms of wealth, but caliber. The rate of return we'll receive from these students is not worth the investment because the majority of them don't have the quality family upbringing they need to appreciate an education or (as it was in my case) at least a parent that would FORCE you to go to school because they did know what was best for you.

2. The quality and caliber of instruction and teachers is on par with the students. You don't really teach in those schools. You baby sit. Maybe a handful of you have skills and really care about the children, but most of you can't do math and chose education to avoid any rigor or challenge in your "career." Plus, hey, 3 months off!

3. Since these kids really aren't getting an education from you, why don't we make their lives better and just give them a house (or again, TWO)? That will benefit them more than your teaching/baby sitting them.

4. HECK, forget the major city schools. Just any school. Again, I've never had $221,000 in my name before. I, along with pretty much everybody else, would have been in a much better financial position if we were just given the dough AND never attended college. Nobody would have a mortgage, unless they really wanted a nice house, in which case their LTV would still be better. Heck, the housing crisis would end tomorrow.

Of course, I'm only being slightly disingenuous. I know you can't have kids just running around feral from 4-18. And without the discipline and education that comes from schooling, they will not have the ability to be responsible adults and even maintain the free house/s we working people would give them. But we do need to wake up and realize there is something VERY wrong with the public schools when we spend SO MUCH MONEY ON ELEMENTARY EDUCATION WE COULD INSTEAD GIVE EVERY CHILD THE AMERICAN DREAM OUTRIGHT.

But let's try an idea I have instead (because I'm not the type to complain and not provide a solution).

Wouldn't it be better to just home school or outsource as much schooling as possible over the internet? Close down these schools, privatize the development and deployment of classes with some government standards and oversight, give the kids not just the ability to have an education, but to explore whatever they'd like for free? We'd cut down on public school expenditures by at least 80% and with NO DROP IN THE QUALITY of education (because you can only go up from here, right Detroit?)

And then with those savings buy most kids anyway a house or at least a mean down payment on one?

Additionally, I'm glad you cried, I'm glad you felt shame and I don't care that you have kidney problems, ESPECIALLY because if I had kidney problems since I was 11 and KNEW about those problems and the expense, I would not be bringing children into this world I can't afford.

But don't let that stop you from literally living off of me. Don't let that stop you and millions like you making the rest of us work harder to make up for your mistakes and poor family management. No, no, let's just get some sob story in the main stream media where people's heart strings are too touched to be critical and logical about it. Meanwhile there needs to be more shame for people who collect food stamps.

Read the whole thing and I think you'll be surprised, like I was, that Roosh didn't hear about the 45 second rule - ie - women know within the first 45 seconds of seeing you if they're interested in you or not.

Regardless, language warning as always, Nanny-Nazi's go file your complaints elsewhere or exercise your right to choose NOT to read it, but for everybody else the stories are always priceless in his Bang series.

And this would apply equally to men as it does women if they decided to stay home and have children:

Um....if you KNOW you're going to stop working when you turn 30, why go to college or start a career in the first place? I mean, if I do the math right, you go to college until you're 23 to get your undergrad (yes, I'm adding an extra year because that's reality). And since the only thing better than education is MORE education (especially the liberal arts), you're in school till you're 25.

So you went to college for 7 years to work, what, 5? Heck, even if you worked till you were 35, that's nearly spending as many years in presumed training as it is working.

Then poof, you're done?

Why did you spend your time and money on that? Heck, why did the taxpayers subsidize you?

Sorry, sorry, I know, people's little dream worlds and fantasies are more important than my mean, evil economist questions of efficiency and productivity. I'm sorry, horses and pretty ponies for every one.

While we have our own battles to fight here, I noticed a disproportionate number of Scandinavian based sites on men's rights, feminism and the like and based on what I've seen, these guys are not only outnumbered and outgunned due to the government having feminism instituted into it, but they risk more derision, outcasting and consequences than we do here (of course, most of us have admitted we had nothing to lose anyway, so eh).

I think this is an opportunity in that we in the US can speak more freely and more truthfully about such matters in foreign countries without the risk of consequences from those countries (like, what are they going to do, tell the UN on us?) not to mention foreigners can speak openly without worrying about violating our various politically correct taboos.

So I've decided to start putting together the Foreign Battalion of the Manosphere here. Please submit any you are aware of that should be put up here. They will inevitably be consolidated into the main directory later. I know of others, but this is the only one that comes to mind right now since I just got back from it:

About a decade ago me and some of my friends opted to go to a drive in. However, this drive in was special. They'd allow you to show up early, grill, play games, etc. etc. I always brought a kickball because there was always enough kids in the area to get a really good game going. Sure enough, this time it was no different. There was at least a score of young kids, you throw in my cadre of 20 somethings and we had 30 people willing to play kickball.

Of course, though, you have to pick teams. Which means you have to designate two captains.

Two of my friends volunteered and thus began the "picking of the teams" where the captains pick what they deem to be the strongest and most athletic people to be on their team.

Sure enough Chad and Tom were chosen, obviously the most physically fit and so I thought I'd be in the second or third round draft.

Mike was picked over me, which was kind of odd. He was fatter than me and he didn't run.

Hey, why is Bill get picked over me!? He can't even run!

Then they started picking our female friends over me and I realized what was happening. The two captains had conspired to pick me dead last as a loving jobke. Everybody was having a good guffaw at the ole Captain's expense as little 8 year olds were picked before me. 7 year old girls and boys were excited to stand next to me because they were getting picked over me. And finally it came down to two.

Me, a 5'9" full grown and in-shape adult male.

And a 4 year old girl who couldn't have been more than 3 feet tall.

Sure enough the little girl was picked over me, her face brimming, and everybody had a good ole laugh.

Now, of course this was done out of loving jest by my friends. And if it made the little kids feel better about themselves not getting chosen dead last for kickball, fine. But then I read this.

It has nothing to do with kickball, but a damn good reason why I'm picking Christian males who blame themselves for their wives' cheating dead last for kickball. Also why I'm picking them dead last as a foxhole partner if the SHTF and I need real men and real leaders to survive. You TAKING THE BLAME for your wife cheating on you???? Are you kidding me? That's the reason your wife cheated on you, because you're a freaking pansy! And an related aside, could you maybe advertise a little louder to our enemies in other countries and around the world just how cowardly and weak half the men in this country are? How you'll all just roll over for anyone and anything?

Even more unbelievable, the cheating wife (and uber beta husband) set up a website explaining the whole ordeal for all of us to see. Seriously, you just can't make this stuff up. (warning, the hypocrisy will make your stomach churn).

Sunday, September 23, 2012

Much as I would like to start a web site ala "People of Wal-Mart" but call it "People of Trader Joe's" I frankly don't have the time.

But with my most recent visit there, I shall debrief every one and give them a synopsis of my experience and observations there.

First, I like Trader Joe's. I don't know why more people don't shop there. The prices are GREAT, cheaper than most places and even though everything is "organic" it still is quality food at dirt cheap prices.

However, that is where the economist ends, and the normal, masculine, self-respecting male takes over. Because in order to avail yourself of said lower prices and quality food you must commit yourself to entering an environment that, frankly, makes you worried you'll get infected and walk out with a rat's nest beard and one less testicle.

First, and I'm being deadly serious, I could kick every guys' ass in the place. And I'm only 142 pounds at 5' 9". There is NO testosterone in the entire joint. Every guy is an emasculated putz. When we first walked in there was this one guy, at least 200 lbs, standing behind his multi-ethnic wife (of course). She was talking to one of the patrons about, who knows, the price of arugula. Spent the next 15 minutes grabbing what we needed, turned the corner, and STILL, there is the emasculated yutz, standing patiently behind his wife/partner, with the dopey look on his face, while she continues talking. He was bigger than me. Probably stronger than me. But you could see in his eyes he was weak, sad, pathetic. Wouldn't raise a finger and his glands could not secrete a hormone of defiance, self respect, or anger.

Second, NOT ONE WOMAN HAD MAKE UP. I started to notice this at first, and when I realized the sample survey I had taken of women had no make up, it became a vendetta to find one that did. NOT ONE. No, the women were all homely. They didn't care to look pretty, they didn't care to look feminine, it's almost as if they were purposely making a political statement that they didn't (I don't know) what, didn't care? Didn't want to conform? It's one thing if you're a 21 year old ditz majoring in sociology, but Jesus H Christ, these women were in their 50's and still carry on this crusade. It was also of meritable note than none of them had wedding rings either. Yeah, yeah, I know, I know, fish bicycle. Enjoy your cats.

Third, the ugliness factor. My girl and I were HANDS DOWN the hottest couple in the joint. And I don't fashion ourselves models or anything like that. It begat me to ponder a theory as to why that was. Why was a grocery store, of all places, a magnet for truly and genuinely ugly people? I have had theories about this before, that liberalism and leftism are the antithesis of competition, and since looks and breeding is nothing more than the more bane and basic form of competition, liberals always seek each other out in Uglyfests like yoga retreats and organic farmer's markets and art festivals to avoid such competition. But mercy, do you all have to converge at the same place I show up at a grocery store? And why the grocery store? I theorize it's because it's "all organic and green and politically 'cool.'" But that only further confirms my theory it's all about avoiding competition because going "green" is nothing more than the lazy/ugly man's way of proving his worth in society. It's like joining a club that requires nothing more than that you "care." "Oooh, look at me, I don't work out, I don't have a real job, I don't do anything, But I "CARE" Want to mate and make really ugly hairy armpit babies?"

Fourth, fashion. To my dear good Jewish friend who had his beanie on. Not only should you not let your kid run rampant over you while I have to endure the argument you have with him about whether or not he should get (organically crappy) candy. Do you have to wear WHITE SNEAKERS with a DARK RUNNING OUTFIT that is completely unnecessary because your gut and lack of sweat shows you obviously don't use them? Look, I'm "technically" Jewish through matriachical um..heritage Jewish thing. I have Jewish friends and relatives and loved ones. But as by all means a "non-Jew" observer, do you have to purposely wear crappy clothing? Are you purposely trying to feed the stereotype like my uncle? Put on some nice slacks. Or just some decent shoes. And THEN wear the beanie. I mean, my god, if I'm going to wear something that tells the world my particular religious affiliation, I'm going to at least make myself presentable to the public and not a disgrace in fashion.

Fifth, any thugs that want to rob a joint, dude, Trader Joe's is THE place to rob. No man, let alone, woman, at that joint is going to stop you. The men, like their clientele are pansified SWPL men. They'll cower, NONE carry guns, and again, if you're 140 pounds and have an ounce of testosterone you can kick their CUMULATIVE asses (and it won't be fair...to them I mean). They'll give you whatever you want. Also the women (and I am NOT being facetious here, I truly believe this) will actually politically support you robbing them. "Ohhh, the poor disadvantage person that has to resort to robbing a place to feed him and his coke addiction..err..."family." Hell, you'll probably score a number or two of frumpy hairy women intoxicated on the Helsinki Syndrome because you're the first real man they've seen in 4 months and are sick at looking at "Seth" with his limpy arms and goatee as her pursues his "Masters in Poetry." And you can get away scott-free. Nobody will call the "fuzz" because the fuzz is facist and besides, you displaying the first real sign of manliness just turned every girl on and they ain't going to narc on you.

Sixth, and finally, it's hypocritical. I saw all of you effeminate, emasculate putzes scoping out my girl. And, yes, I caught a couple of you "confirmed" feminists, scoping me out too. And I saw all you people in the parking lot envy my girl's car. Your human DNA and millions of years of genetic programming betray you. You REALLY don't like shopping there, at least for the prices anyway. You really don't like being ugly. You really don't like being who you are. YOu're just too damn lazy to change who you are and achieve your best. You find it easier to find solace in the company of other lazy people to rationalize your CHOICE to not try, not endure, not work hard, not sweat or toil. YOu find it easier to "race to the bottom" to rationalize your pathetic rank. And you all hide behind it like all other cowards who are afraid of life - behind political crusades.

You're all going "green."

You're all "caring about the environment."

You're all "caring about the poor."

BS.

You're all too lazy to go and kick ass and take names. And what's sad is you don't shop at Trader Joe's because of the prices. YOu shop there, first and foremost, because it's a loser's club. The economic rationale to shop there doesn't even occur to you.

I'll admit it's a harsh theory, but I'll rescind and retract this one when somebody comes up with a better one as to why such homely people shop at Trader Joe's. AND I don't want to hear any crap about how "insulting I am" because if I recall, many of you folk have no problem mocking the "People of Wal-Mart" when you don't realize you're just the opposite side of the same coin.

Not kidding. This is a recent comment on that post I made about that idiot who pursued a "Masters" in "Puppetry." She seemed hell-bent on getting her e-mail out there, so let's give her a warm Cappy Cap welcome.

Katie Underhay - email me at Katie.underhay@rwcmd.ac.uk for more information, if you are willing to be educated said...I seriously think you need to worry about yourself before you
worry about the careers and education of everyone else on Earth.
Puppetry, like any other career (particularly the arts and theatre) is
incredibly hard to get into. Having a masters degree in a subject is no
doubt going to help employability and why shouldn't someone who is
passionate about a subject which could bring joy to millions have to
pass that up to become a neurobiologist? I am not "too stupid" to have a
different career, but I like puppets. And if Jim Henson decided to
become an accountant then I expect there would be thousands of children
all over the world who would have found it a lot harder to earn to
count, or about coping with death or accepting other cultures and
ethnicities (all covered within Sesame Street).

I highly doubt
you have seen War Horse, but Handspring (a British puppet company)
developed beautiful and moving puppetry based on Michael Morpurgo's
novel at the National Theatre Company and not only has this production
moved from the national to another West End Theatre, it has also moved
to Broadway and entertained and been a form of escapism for thousands
of people. And if you think that something this spectacular on the West
End and Broadway isn't worth educated people to be involved in it,
PLEASE be my guest and insult Musical Theatre Degrees, Drama Degrees,
Fine Art Degrees, Music Degrees, Stage Management, Theatre Design,
Technical Theatre, because in your mind, these are all pointless, as is
the theatre. I suppose if you think theatre is pointless, you agree that
television is pointless? And that degrees in acting are pointless for
the performers in your favourite TV shows?

I do not take insults
to the arts lightly. They are often made by ignorant people who expect
entertainment to come from nowhere. So unless you want to sit alone in a
room being a banker (or whatever you do) with no artwork or posters on
your wall, no music to ever listen to or even radio shows, no
television, no theatre, no film, no literature, and no bedtime stories
to read your children (which I doubt) then LIVE AND LET LIVE.

If
you don't like the idea of a Masters Degree in Puppetry, don't take
one! And stop worrying about those who do! Live is too short to worry
abut people you think are idiots, therefore I shall stop thinking about
you!

Seriously people, I'm not making this up. This IS a real comment.

Now, I have plenty of things to say, but instead, I'm going to take a different approach.

I'm going to let you guys eviscerate her.

Now keep in mind she is only a naive 20 something child who has no real world experience and relies on us real adults to work real jobs to pay the taxes so she can pursue a subsidized hobby whilst claiming (no doubt) to be an "independent woman" even though she is the veritable definition of a parasite.

So be extra special "affirmative action" sweet to her.

On a serious note. Cripes. Are people in this world really this stupid?

Saturday, September 22, 2012

Mercy. Reminds me of a game I play. "Ugly or Unhappy." You play it by driving up on a Prius and you guess whether the driver is unhappy (usually frowning), ugly or both. You all make your bets and the driver passes the Prius, you peer into the Prius driver's window and confirm who was right.

Usually everybody, no matter what their bets, and no, I'm not making that up. I have 7 years experience in this game. You should try it yourself and see if I'm lying.

Friday, September 21, 2012

After the great economic minds of Cappy Cappites converged and discussed the retirement debate, I believe Ras Al Ghul had the "most appropriate" answer - make your own moonshine.

This is not to belittle or lessen the other answers/options because (as another reader pointed out) it WILL depend on the environment, you yourself and your personal preferences, and what precisely happens in the economy (complete rapid collapse or just a slow degradation).

However, I believe no matter where you go and where you are the ABILITY and SKILL to make booze will serve you well AND make sure the roving bands keep you alive instead of randomly kill you:

Please make a win-win-win decision.

Buy yourself the book so you can make booze and retire in comfort - WIN!
Buy yourself the book so I can make a commission - WIN!
Buy yourself the book so the author who had the wisdom to write this tome gets a royal check - WIN!

The speech is a must, but what irks me (and makes me proud at the same time) is how I spotted this crusaderism to be nothing but a ruse or a secret vehicle for delivering socialism long ago, but it was discovered and ID's so long ago by Thomas DiLorenzo.

There has been some constructive debate here on Cappy Cap as to what to invest in given the poor economic outlook for the future. You don't invest in education because, well, who is going to hire you. You don't invest in fixed assets, because, well, they'll be taxed away or just outright confiscated. You certainly don't invest in a retirement plan, not just because stocks are historically overvalued, but there is also a significant chance the government will either rescind the tax benefits of those retirement plans OR just outright confiscate them ala Argentina and Bolivia.

So what do you do with a worthless piece of paper with Ben Franklin's face on it?

Well, there are so far four options:

Discuss and resolve which is the best.

On a side note, it was very economically and mentally rewarding converting a worthless piece of paper (with the additional dilution of Mr. Bernanke's recent actions) into a tangible good that can be used later. You almost feel guilty handing the paper over to some "sucker" willing to part with that tangible good for your piece of paper.

Thursday, September 20, 2012

I know when men tender advice about "how to court guys" or "how to catch a man" or "what men like in women," the pre-programmed, visceral response from most modern day women is

"WHAT MAKES YOU THINK WE WANT A MAN OR NEED ONE??? I'M MY OWN WOMAN AND I HAVE A CAREER, AND YOU MUST BE SHALLOW AND LIKE SKINNY CHICKS, YOU PROBABLY DEGRADE WOMEN BY EXPECTING THEM TO DRESS UP IN LINGERIE, WELL, THAT'S NOT ME!!! I'M AN INDEPENDENT blah blah blah blah."

Of course, that night you're at home crying because you can't find a man.

Well, I've always had a very simple theory. So simple, it's complex. So simple it has evaded people because it's been hiding right there out in the public.

Dispense, if you will, with the latest in feminist theory or ideology you've been fed and just think about it for a second.

Men and women are not only different, they are kind of designed purposely to be different to umm..."do things" together. They complement each other. Whether this was "intelligent" design or evolution, more powerful forces than you and an army of women's studies professors are at work here and, frankly, can't be overridden.

So the obvious solution would be to simply be feminine. Because, well, that's what men like.

No, no, I know, I know.

"Who cares what men like!? You don't need a man, and why is it all about what the man wants, and what gall do I have to suggest to you what to do and blabbity blah blah blah."

I'm sorry, my apologies for being so presumptive and misogynistic.

What time would you like me to drop off the Kleenexes later this evening when you're crying?

Wednesday, September 19, 2012

The Captain, as you know, likes to drink and is of course partial to the true nectar of the gods - Rumpleminze. And, if you are like me, you probably go to the local bar and buy two drinks per day. That, depending on tip and where you go, can easily add up to around $12-$14.

However, it dawned on me while running today that I really haven't acquired a significant "physical commodity portfolio." I put a couple calls into several coin dealers in town and the going price for a silver dollar is around $27.

Of course, I'm not one for discipline, but neither am I one for all out hedonism either. And every once in a while I like to put myself through a period of discipline to make sure I still have self control.

So I decree the next 30 days "Buy Silver Dollars, Not Booze" month were, essentially every other day you are allowed to go buy a silver dollar if you didn't buy booze at the bar the two days previous. In theory you will have acquired 15 silver pieces which (when the federal government fully monetizes the debt) will allow you to pay off your mortgage with one silver dollar.

I checked out some of the PDFs for some of the
classes and it's pretty much a huge joke. They list all the "books" you
need in the syllabi which sound like the ones I can either buy cheap on
Amazon or go to my local public library and check them out for free and
read the same material at my own pace and learn it, or better yet,
listen to talk radio. I've even Googled some of the authors of the books
they recommend like John Stuart Mill. Shockingly enough, I discovered
that a lot of the authors were either liberal or influenced by some
Marxist writer or had ties to Marxism. Utter brainwashing. A lot of the
authors suspiciously were Yale and Harvard graduates. In one of the
courses, you can even read and learn about Karl Marx.

I like how his sister is making $10/hr. That's actually quite high for a BA in Poli (ahem ahem COUGH COUGH, WHEEZE WHEEZE) "Science."

Keep spreading the word young people. And as an insult or a "I Told You So" gift, you can always buy them "Worthless."

This is nothing more than the most selfish bitch on the face of the planet. I will further contend she couldn't care less about her kid as much as she does using the kid to get attention and ruining other people's fun. I pity the kid.

Most Japanese anime sucks (and YES MR. FULLER, I KNOW SPICE AND WOLF! I'm on it!)

However, in the case of Cowboy Bebop where it was heavily influenced by American culture, I think the perfect combination is the superior American directing combined with the superior Japanese animation and drawing.

I have not been compelled to watch a cartoon as much as this one in recent memory:

I've discovered the single variable the explains everything about politics, especially in this upcoming election - math.

Oh laugh if you will, but just as you can boil down economics to producers and parasites, you can boil all of politics down to math.

Allow me to explain.

Math does two things.

1. It explains the motives and incentives of most two party systems (even the European ones where there's about 300 different parties, but still aligned on producer and parasite ideologies) and

2. it explains the entire psychology of people who subscribe to the parasite ideology.

First, if you look at every "two party system" (and I do include those European parliaments with 300 different parties) in general it boils down to one party trying to be mature and realistic, and another party being infantile and living in Lala Land. One trying to dispense tough, fatherly love, and another trying to woo the children with motherly-cake-bribing love. Understand the Lala Land party does not do so because it wishes to be infantile or doesn't know what the reality is, but because it wishes to be in power. This necessitates the Lala Land party not only ignore reality, but spend the vast majority of its efforts in spinning events and numbers, securing and brainwashing future voters with their propaganda, concocting "crises" where there are none (but only the have the solution), and creating outright lies and falsehoods about the reality-based party in an attempt to villainize them. They have to outdo reality and so resort to (sometimes) the most outlandish tactics (the global warming scam and "Romney killed my wife" etc.)

This results in what I like to call "The Cake and Broccoli Parties." One party is inevitably the fatherly party pooper, telling his kids things that are FACTUAL, but kids don't like to hear. "No, you can't sit on your ass, you need to work. No we don't have enough money for that. No, we aren't buying that. No you can't have candy, you need to drink your milk and eat your broccoli." The other party gets to be the divorce-seeking mother who vies for the favor of her children, with the added benefit of using the father's money to finance her bribery. "Yes, you can have a Coke with your ice cream. No you don't need to do your chores. No you don't have to work. No you don't have to work out. Yes, you should have free food. Yes, you should have free health care. Here, have some more cake, just remember you love mom and your dad hates you and he beats me and he killed my wife."

But, again, here is where math comes in and explains in large part the actions and words of the typical parasite party.

In the long run the decisions, promises and policies pursued by the left are not sustainable and inevitably do fail. The kid will get cavities just as the economy will scare away investors and businesses. This will not just manifest itself in people's personal lives, but numbers (with any modicum of honesty used when calculating them) will start to show it. Unemployment, GDP growth, income, wages, deficits, etc. etc. As this reality comes crushing down on the parasite party, it's main job is to explain it away and spin reality. And not just do that, blame the problems on the producer/reality party, or just go for the good ole fashioned "class envy/warfare." Their arguments to anybody with half a brain say nothing, avoid reality, and do not have numbers or any tangible plans (this is why Romney had a five point plan in his speech at the RNC while Obama just blathered on the same vomitous pablum he did 4 years ago, oh, and Romney killed some guy's wife). But again, this is not because they're stupid. It's because they're hoping you are and you will swallow such puke and vote for them.

Regardless, what you will note is the stark absence of math (or at least non-manipulated statistics) coming out of the parasite party. It's always going to be amorphous references to the future, attacks and villainizing the producer/father party, citings of fabricated "injustices," and again, crises made of whole cloth (the solutions of which magically always involve more taxation, other people's money and less freedom). The father/reality party (if it was intellectually honest this entire time) has an easy job - just cite math, statistics and reality and IN THE LONG RUN you should be able to win most elections (that is assuming you even kick the left out of education and shut down their voter-farms).

While this explains most political parties' behaviors, it does not explain how such parasite parties can get such a foothold with the voting public. Oh sure, they might have some success, and yes, with the introduction of new (and idiotic) voters from their voter mills (public schools), in the short run they might have a go at it. But inevitably these people must wake up, grow up and realize the lies they're being told, right?

Right?

Well, there's just one problem.

Humans hate math.

It is not so much that humans hate math (some humans like math), but that humans are innately and inherently lazy. They prefer something for nothing. And since math takes effort I contend you can explain the entirety of human nature and tyranny based on people who do and do not like math or at least those willing to put forth the effort to learn math and those that avoid it.

Oh laugh if you will. But allow me to point out a couple instances of people who don't like math.

Bankers - bankers are basically jocks who didn't make it to professional sports, but still wanted to make a ton of money. Of course, they could become engineers or doctors, but that would take too much math and effort. No, they will instead take some modicum of math via finance or accounting, and maybe not even that. They will then claim, "I'm a big picture sort of guy" talk about "networking" and then "just get the deal done." They will also every 25 years of so require the taxpayer bail them out and every 50 years throw economies into deep recessions. Some will run for office.

Lawyers - see "bankers" but their origins are liberal arts grads who (obviously) didn't like math. They still want to make money, but enter a field even less-profit-promising than bankers. After 5 years in undergrad and 3 years in law school, do you think they're NOT going to make it pay off? Get ready for concocted law suits that drive up the prices for everybody else. Oh, and guess who runs for public office more than any one else?

Liberal arts students - "I'm going to follow my heart and you're all going to pay me." Translation - "I hate math and I want other people to do math to produce the latest Apple Product while I play "Overpaid Government Baby Sitter" on the money you pay in taxes. Thanks for majoring in engineering you sucker."

Fat Acceptance - "I don't care what the scale says. Big is beautiful and you're shallow for not finding me attractive." This also has the variance of "I'm on a diet, I lost 2 pounds in the past 3 months."

Joseph Stalin - "Make the exchange rate 14 rubles per US dollar." (that one you'll all have to look up ;)

People Who Don't Know the Difference between Millions, Billions and Trillions - This is a particular pet peeve of mine because I do believe if younger folk (heck, older folk) KNEW the difference between a million, a billion and a trillion, then they might realize just how screwed our finances are in this country. However, all they hear is "illion" and think, "that's a lot of money. Well at least the GLEOC will take care of it. Oooo! Look, the Packers are playing Tennessee!"

Communist Dictators - do you think any of them give a damn about unemployment, GDP or economic growth or are more concerned with oppressing and keeping their citizens in the dark. Yeah, I'm sure North Korea has the FRED database its people can look stuff up on.

Too Lazy to Look It Up - You know how your mom would say, "look it up?" That would mean you'd have to go to the library, use the archaic Dewey decimal system, pour through a book or micro-fiche and find it after 2 hours of searching. I could see where that would breed a distaste for looking things up. Today kids (and adults) have the internet and it's at their fingertips. But they're still too lazy to look up basic data and statistics (my favorite is "corporate welfare" - no liberal has yet been able to cite a figure for me as to how much that is). What kind of person is so lazy they can't look it up on the internet? This one particularly irks me because it shows you just how truly lazy and fearing of math they are. It also angers me because the internet should have destroyed the left everywhere. Just shows you what a good job they did brainwashing the dolts.

Now, I could go on and on, but you get the point. People who not just abhor math, but purposely choose to ignore it out of ignorance, laziness, or a psychotic loyalty to their ideology are not the type who are going to go out and produce the next cancer vaccine or hover cars. Additionally, they provide more than enough fuel to keep parasite parties in power not only because the party will provide them with the socialist spoils of wealth-redistribution, but because they like being lied to. Their egos remain intact. You aren't poor because you had 15 kids and couldn't do basic math. Now you're poor because "the system failed you man!" You aren't unemployed because your chose the world's most stupid major. No, Romney killed your wife...no...err...wait, Romney is oppressing you. The ignorant spoiled brats of society get what they want, and a political party gets re-elected.

There is one problem though in ignoring math and reality. And that is math and reality always win in the end.

Sure, you can eat cake instead of broccoli all day, but soon you'll be fat, have cavities and a host of other health problems.

Sure, you can yell and scream at men for being shallow and not being attracted to fat girls. But in the end you'll still be single, your sex life will suck and you will also have a host of health problems.

And yes, you can take your right to vote and vote in a party that ignores math, tells you what you want to hear and can keep the racket up for a generation or two until the money runs out. But in the end the economy will be destroyed, you won't have a future, and neither will your kids.

It is here that every human must ask him/herself a simple question - am I going to grow up and become an adult or not?

It's not a tricky question. It's not a bold question. It's not a challenging question. It's a question every human has had to face in the history of humans.

Do you grow up or not?

Because if you do, and everybody starts adhering to economic reality, then we can get this country (and all other countries today and into the future) growing and excelling again. If you don't, well then have fun jumping off the cliff thinking gravity isn't real and that "stupid" math of 9.8 m/s squared doesn't apply to you.

Just let me know in advance so I can set up my lawn chair, light up a cigar and pour myself a Rumpie.

"The Higher Education Bubble" by Glenn Reynolds has a common criticism about it and that is it's too short. I too was expecting a book of some kind, but then realized it was not meant to be a book, but is rather part of a series of essays.

You would think "well if it's not a book, then why would I read an essay?" But there is a darn good reason you would probably want to consider Dr. Reynold's book over my own - time.

Books take time to read. Time a lot of people don't have. But because of the importance of the education bubble and how it affects everyone the essay form may actually be a better format to deliver the bad (but realistic and necessary) news. Also consider who would benefit most from reading about the education bubble - high school juniors and seniors.

Have you noticed the attention span on today's kids?

It is because of this that Dr. Reynold's book is strongly recommended and may be a better vehicle to get into and change the minds of today's impressionable and galactically ignorant youth.

There is, however, an additional "benefit" "The Higher Education Bubble" has over my own book - it's not political.

Though "Worthless" I think is much more fun and delivers mockery and ridicule where it rightly belongs, it can AND HAS turned people off because of its politics, namely people who probably are of the lefter leaning stripe, but would ironically be some of the larger beneficiaries of reading it. Dr. Reynold's book does not have this insulting flair and so would be a better candidate for getting people to lend out their ears.

Regardless of which route you care to go of educating yourself or a younger loved one about the education bubble, I would recommend "The Higher Education Bubble" because of its brevity and non-partisanship.

If you want to laugh your ass off, however, and hear anecdotes of me getting sent to the principal's office because I told my 7th grade teacher "it must be tough teaching a language you and the students have been speaking their entire lives" then I'd recommend "Worthless."

Jump, if you will, into the co-pilot's seat of the Captain's personal F-22 fighter plane. We're going to fly really high because we are going to need a very high bird's eye view in order for me to make my point. So high that your brain will disassociate itself from its current environment, allowing you to have the perspective to see what I see.

As it stands right now, be you left or right, we are looking for government to do something to get us out of this economic mess. The left votes for more government action, while the right votes for less government action. Regardless, both require government action. "Lowering taxes, increasing taxes. More regulation, less regulation. My question is one that you need to be high up to observe:

"What business is it of the government's how well the economy does anyway?"

Stick with me here.

I don't know if it was ever like this (though I presume it was upon the founding of the country), but why should the government or the people in the government worry about what its private citizens do? In my "ideal world" of how government would work, it would provide the basics of public goods that protects its citizens and allows for an efficiently operating society, but beyond that, the government (for better or worse) should have no skin in ANY regard of its people.

It wouldn't care if the economy was booming or not.

It wouldn't care if gays or straights want to get married in that it wouldn't license such things.

It wouldn't care if a company went green or not (and it certainly wouldn't finance any of them ala Solyndra or the SBA).

And if the people so mismanaged a business (GM, the banks, etc.) it wouldn't bail them out.

The government would be a very distant, cold and remote entity who if anybody came in and said, "You need to help us" it would say, "not my problem. We do roads, defense, infrastructure and law. Your economic problems are not under our jurisdiction. Deal with your own mistakes."

In short the government would leave the people to enjoy and suffer 100% of their successes and mistakes, allowing the population to learn (and thereby advance) much more rapidly than had it intervened all the time either trying to make things "fair" or "better."

Now with that concept in mind, I have a question -

What arrogant idiot decided it was OK to have the government start intervening in people's affairs?

And once again we have to be high up in the sky for you to realize the question I'm asking.

Who decided it's only the Fed that can get us out of our economic woes?

I could go on and on about the veritable Nazis Fuhrers Bloomberg and Obama (Michelle) telling us what to eat.

I know the answer is (usually) leftists and crusaders, but my question goes beyond individual, specific things that are obviously a violation of a person's individuality and freedom. I'm talking something much more fundamental. AND I'm talking about who or what group of people ORIGINALLY decided it was OK to cross this line and start destroying freedom.

For example the concept of "expansionary" and "contractionary" fiscal policy. What arrogance and bravado did it take for somebody to say, "Hey, the government can be used to expand and contract the economy in order to control inflation and growth!" It's none of the government's damn business whether an economy grows or contracts. That is up to the private citizens. Additionally, wouldn't you presume a government fiscal policy (it any at all) would be constantly expansionary? Wouldn't the government set up minimal rules and regulations that would result in a perpetual expansionary policy, conducive to maximum economic growth and be done with it once and for all, never to revisit it again?

No, it took some idiot, some power-hungry totalitarian to decide that, "Hey, I know what's better/best for the people! AND IT'S MY JURISDICTION TO INTERVENE!"

So my question is this - who was that guy? Who committed this "first, original cardinal sin of Keynesianism?"

Was it John Maynard Keynes himself? I doubt it, governments had been intervening long before he hit the scene. Woodrow Wilson maybe? Somewhere, I imagine, at least in US history, there was a group or a person who over-stepped the boundaries and deemed it the government's domain to cross that line and start taking a vested and unwarranted interest in what its peoples' private affairs.

Monday, September 17, 2012

So I presume we're all supposed to pay more in taxes to support these little brats' "college experience" without expecting them to learn anything.

I was hopeful there was an echelon or two of Gen Y students who "got it" and realized BO wasn't their savior after all. But now I realized for every one of those truly independent minded people there's a score of complete f$#%ing retards that really think college is supposed to be an "experience."

In my previous post I asked which of the three major Keynesian stimuli is NOT like the others. The three being:

WWII
Ronald Reagan
and
Bush/Obama

Many answers were tendered AND MANY WERE RIGHT FOR MULTIPLE REASONS, but I recall only one person getting the answer I was personally looking for.

There was a future in two of them, there is no future in the third.

I addressed this before, but I feel I have to address this again because idiots like Bernanke and His Magic Federal Reserve keep hammering away with their impotent tools to get the economy to grow again and so let the lesson begin.

During WWII, forget fighting for our future, we were just fighting to survive. We did not want the socialist fascist government of the Nazi's nor did we want the religious worship of an emperor as they did in Japan. We wanted to continue to be America and in fighting this second world war, further defined what it meant to be America and American. When the troops got back, we were not only victorious, but (unlike Vietnam and to a lesser extend today) the rest of the country were proud of what the troops did and supported them. In short we were all on the same page and pro-American. The troops and the rest of society then continued on to build a greater America by investing in businesses, homes and families.

During Reagan, yes there was an element of a cold-war going on, but the primary reason the Reagan Keynesian stimulus worked is because, once again, there was a future. Reagan was no doubt pro-America. More importantly he was pro-production, pro-individualism, pro-freedom, pro-business, pro-economic growth. The producers of this society knew he was on their side and thusly had faith in the short to medium term future of the country.

Today you may have been able to claim Bush was somewhat pro-America, but the same cannot be said of Obama. Additionally, you know for a fact Obama is not "pro-Business, "pro-Individualism," or "pro-Entrepreneur." He comes from a cabal of politicians who hate business, hate success, hate production and the only real "economic" plan he has is "well, all those green jobs will save us" (even though those green jobs aren't economic). Additionally, the economic stimulus he has pursued hasn't been focusing on tax cuts as much as it has been a galactic pissing away of future generations' money on frivolous social programs and government programs that produce nothing. Certainly not capital goods that would be used for future production, not even consumer goods that could be used for immediate consumption. Just initiatives, grants and a free-for-all for his armies of worthless-degreed people-come-social-workers/activities.

So Krugman can call for all the government spending he was.

Bernanke can promise the Fed will genetically engineer job-farting unicorns.

It won't matter.

This "Keynesian stimulus" is nothing more than a money grab and the administration is doing nothing more than criminalizing and destroying the American way of life.

I walked outside my townhome this afternoon and surprisingly saw two little girls looking at the stones that I had used to adorn my sidewalk. MOST people don't know those "stones" are actually fossils and agates I deemed to be unworthy of showcase materiel and since I had a surplus of them, I decided that "sidewalk adorning" was their best use. But these mere 9 year old girls had a trained eye and noticed the pattern of the ammonite shell differentiated those "stones" from the rest of the stones members of the HOA used.

Originally I had a better intention for those fossils. For those fossils were no ordinary fossils upon discovery. No, they were my first veritable "find" of fossils I ever had in my life. A find nobody else found, and so I loaded up no less than about 400 pounds of those fossils.

Of course I found out later there are billions of these fossils available for sale on the internet, but at the time it was in my humble life a "historic find."

Confirming my "discovery" was nothing special was when I decided to take some of my lesser samples and sell them at the local flee market. Oh, yes, I polished, cut and coated all the fossils in enamel to make them marketable and appetizing to the young boys who would no doubt beg their parents to buy them some. But sadly in the end I only sold one fossil.

One measly little fossil to some nerdy kid.

It begat a philosophical reaction in me.

"If young boys can't be interested in fossils then where the hell has this country gone!?"

I don't know about you, but have any of you ever held a fossil? Have any of you ever held the former remains of a creature that was here multiple-millions of years ago?

I thought it was pretty cool. I thought that was pretty neat.

But, alas, as I am a capitalist first and foremost, it doesn't matter what "I" find interesting, it only matters what the masses find interesting, and thus, more people find Apple's latest 'screw you over gadget' er...I mean ...."product" more interesting than the physical remains of a pre-historic octopus.

Regardless, despite my spectacular failure to sell fossils and thinking no kids in the entirety of the United States had any interest in fossils, there sat before me two young girls rummaging through my "sidewalk crap fossils."

I said, "So, do you like fossils?"

They looked at me all scared like (as they should because they are only little young girls and I am a mean, evil puppy kicking republican male).

"yeah" one sheepishly said.

"Well those are all crap-fossils. You don't want none of those. I have a lot better fossils that are in storage."

There was a bit of an impasse as I looked at them blankly and they looked at me blankly. Then it dawned on me that they're kids and I better take the lead plus they were probably scared of me.

"Stay here, I'll show you some real fossils."

And so I went down into my basement, grabbed from my collection an ancient clam STILL with some of its original shell, a jaw bone of an oredont, a fish fossil I found in Kemmerer, and a handful of quality ammonites and clams.

But when I returned, they had spawned into THREE little girls.

One of their little buddies just popped out of nowhere.

"Who the hell is this?"

"This is our friend Amy"

"Oh."

"She's 11"

"Uh..oh...well ummm..good for her."

And so I went to show them some of the better pieces of my collection and engaged in some discussion about paleontology.

Now by this time I had already told them that I had some much better pieces in storage AND I told them they could take whatever they liked from my crap sidewalk fossils AND to check back with me later when I retrieved my fossils in storage. I was thinking this statement and my showing them some better pieces would send them on their way and they would take the hint.

But no. They're kids. They don't pick up on those subtleties normal adults do. They look at you like you're going to say more.

And so I had to say,

"well, look girls. I have to go do some adult stuff. But why don't you stop by later next week and I'll make sure to have enough fossils for all of you."

They still sat there with blank stares on their faces.

"Uh, I have to GO and do things. I PROMISE I WILL bring you back some fossils. Just stop by later. You have to go now."

I think they finally got the hint and so they slowly shoved off. They walked down the sidewalk with the handful of fossils I gave them and I thought "Bonus Cappy Cap Points for spreading the word of paleontology."

Thinking I was rid of them I started running my errands, until 2 hours later when they knocked at the door to see if I had retrieved those fossils in storage.

"No, girls. Not yet, it will be a week. They're in Wisconsin and far north. I have to go get them. Stop by later. And by "later" I mean a week!"

So they kind of sadly shoved off again, and SO FAR they haven't been back this evening.

Now, I know you schmoes. You're all getting warm fuzzies about how I had this triumvirate of girls show up at my joint and I wasn't the mean, evil, republican type that yelled at them and told them to get off my property at the end of a shotgun.

THAT IS NOT the lesson to be pulled from here.

The lesson is WHAT THE HELL IS HAPPENING TO THE BOYS OF THIS COUNTRY?

I have three GIRLS pilfering my joint, interested in fossils????

Where the hell are the boys????

I was at least HOPING some young boys would at least have the decency to STEAL some fossils so I could slowly unload all my crap fossils. But, no, young boys in America today can't even do that. No, I need three 9 year old girls to sheepishly look over my crap-sidewalk fossils and then ask politely to have some, and then stop by two hours thinking they've been delivered.

Sad day in America when the girls are starting to show more scientific promise and curiosity than the boys.

Friday, September 14, 2012

I wake up every day around 10-11AM. I run or work out. Have my cup of coffee at the local pub (maybe something stronger). Have breakfast at home. Do a little typity-type here on teh interwebz. Work on various hobbies or projects I have. Play some video games. Then go out at night with my friends and simply repeat the process till I'm dead.

I pay little, if anything, in taxes because I make so little. I also contribute nothing to a retirement program. While this means no asset accumulations, that also means I have no assets I have to worry about being confiscated or seized. Plus, with little income and no assets, we have the added bonus of all those caring, compassionate Minnesota liberals that have voted in a plethora of tax breaks and benefits to people like me who are deemed "poor" (most of which I have yet to inquire about because I just haven't had the time to see if I qualify for "food stamps" or whatever other socialist malarkey they've voted in).

It is a life of maximum freedom I'm still getting used to and still have yet to fully comprehend, but in the few feet I've burrowed down this rabbit hole further I have come up with an interesting realization.

Despite your best efforts to be a minimalist and make as little as possible, you're arguably the most likely candidate to be filthy rich.

Allow me to explain why.

Nobody really makes it "rich" by "working hard" and "being loyal" to their employer. ALL employers have the goal of profit maximization which aligns their interests completely against yours. They are looking to not just keep your salary low, but eliminate you if at all possible. This leads to not only wage stagnation, but job insecurity. This would seem a bad deal that nobody would participate in, however if you saddle yourself with liabilities like a house, children and a spouse, then you really have no choice. You must abide by the terms of "traditional" employment, pursue it, play their games, suffer the politics, constantly be "leanring new skills" to keep up with CPE, in the hopes they don't lay you off in the next round of lay offs. You never invent anything. You never create anything. You MUST obey your employer. Check your individuality and ideas at the door, you're our newest valuable member to "Team Corporate Bitch."

In short, you are the furthest thing from an entreprenuer. You are a corporate slave. You need to play the game and endure the pettiness of corporate politics because you have liabilities and responsibilities to pay for, namely a wife, children and a mortgage. You never get to pursue what YOU want as you are too busy doing what other people tell you.

Contrast that now to your "loser" minimalist counterpart living in the basement of a buddy's, sleeping on a couch. This individual only has to work enough to support him/herself. A true minimalist will realize this only takes about maybe 10 hours of work per week, especially if they keep their expenses low. But (and here's the kicker) what does that person do with the other 30 hours per week of leisure while all their married-with-children-counterparts are busy at work, unable to play?

Well, if you're like any regular guy, you're inevitably going to be driven insane loafing around with nobody to talk to and inevitably you're going to start getting creative. Something, ANYTHING to occupy your mind. And that's when you'll start becoming really innovative.

And innovation is the most direct route to riches.

It may not be a book. It may not be a new piece of code. It may not be a new and revolutionary idea. But it will be SOMETHING that the loafing minimalists will come up with that their fully-engaged-and-enslaved corporate bitch counterparts never have the time to come up with themselves. In other words, the minimalist and the corporate slave may have the same intellectual capacity for creation and innovation. It's just that the minimalist actually has the time to actually pursue and implement these ideas.

A perfect example is the gal who wrote the Harry Potter books.

Shoot, you pay me a government check for being a single mom and I'll write books.

But what of her otherwise employed mom counterpart? The one who works all those extra hours at the local law office or social services department. When that counterpart is done with her 8-10 hour day with an extra 1-2 hour commute, and another hour of picking up her children form the Child-Outsource-Department...err...I mean..."daycare." Do you think she has the intellectual and creative energy to start writing fantasy books at the end of the day?

Of course not. Which brings about the dichotomy.

Though you, I and others may be minimalists, realize one of (if not "the") biggest advantages we have is that we have the option of working "smarter." We get to create and innovate. And not just create and innovate, but pursue. AND that is without some aging, old fart yutz dismissing our ideas and getting in our way. And though we may make peanuts now compared to our counterparts, if we ever pursue an idea and any one of those ideas actually take off, it is we who will be the genuine self-made millionaires vs the "$400,000 McMansion senior project manager with a $450,000 mortgage, SUV, and no time for ourselves" type people.

ie- there is only an upshot for being a minimalist.

At MINIMUM you have the majority of your time and life to yourself. You're not slaving away, you're not working for somebody else. You're not suffering the psychological torture of mismanaged and dysfunctional employers. You get to live your life.

However, at the same time, in getting to live your life, you are in a supremely better position to actually make riches as it is ideas and creations that make money, not "getting an MBA and putting in those extra hours after 4 billion hours of additional CPE certifications and kissing Bob's ass in the HR department."

So don't just think outside the box ladies and gentlemen. Actually get outside the box and make things happen....except for those of you with children, spouses, mortgages, SUV's, credit card bills and other things you can't afford. You need to stay in the box and be a team player. ;)

Since WWII, there has been "roughly" three major "Keynesian Stimuli" of expansionary fiscal policy.

The first one was WWII itself. Arguably the godfather of all Keynesian stimuli, it got us out of the Great Depression.

The second was Ronald Reagan. Reagan, despite his reputation was a HAYOOOGE spender, driving up deficits to the point the debt had to be addressed. Regardless, that got us out of the of oil-embargo/lazy-hippie-infestation/generally crappy 70's economy.

The third is today with what I will intellectually-honestly call "Bush-Obama" because Obama merely took Bush's deficit spending and magnified it. Still Keynesian, still deficit spending, still expansionary, BUT....

One key thing missing.

A recovery.

Now I know three instances or case studies of Keynesian economic policy does not make a trend, but there is a difference between the Keynesian stimuluses of WWII and Reagan versus that of Bush/Obama.

And it is the same reason why this galactic DF of a stimulus has failed.

Anybody care to guess what that reason is?

I'll give you a clue. Modern day Keynesians are focusing too much on economics and not something else.

POST-POST - Ok,it seems people are missing the forest from the trees. I am playing devil's advocate and using liberal arguments and assumptions to only further my point. So let's just "assume" it was WWII and other Keynesian type things that got us out of these recessions. What is missing from this current Keynesian splurgefest that explains the lack of recovery.